Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

International Development Bill

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien—and it is with great surprise, as well as delight, that I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon. The Committee has just witnessed an unprecedented turn of events. This is our fourth sitting on the International Development Bill and there is some feeling that insufficient time has been allocated. I have not been able to put to the Minister all the points that I would have done had we not faced a 5 o'clock guillotine.
 I hope that no untoward event has befallen our expected Chairman. I expect that all hon. Members share my concern about his welfare, which will continue until we have further news of him. However, as the Committee sitting has begun eight minutes late, how should we go about reclaiming the eight minutes that we have lost? What recourse is available to us?

Bill O'Brien: I understand that the decision on the timetabling of the Committee was taken by the House. If an extension of time is needed, it is necessary to return the matter to the House and to recall the Committee that made the decision on the dates and times of sittings. I am afraid that I cannot say, ``Yes, the Committee can have extended time.''
 As for the eight-minute extension, that is a matter for someone who is not present. The time has been set. The decision was taken by the Committee at an early stage and I am afraid that we have no permission to extend the time now. That is unfortunate, but that is the position as I see it. If we need extra time, the matter must go back to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I thank you for that ruling, which is a novel and precedent-setting one. I am sure that every hon. Member will take notice of what you said. That ruling is rather alarming, because it means that once the House has fixed the time for debate by means of one of these new and badly received programming motions, valuable time to consider any Bill can be eaten into by the House itself, the authorities of the House or the failure to be present of the relevant member of the Chairman's Panel. [Interruption.] I am not filibustering. I am making a valid point—the Chairman would rule me out of order if I were filibustering. I will not take what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) is saying from a sedentary position. This is a serious point.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien.

Cheryl Gillan: I am making a point of order at the moment. As a precedent has been set, it is important to make sure that it is on the record so that the House authorities can consider it. I am not being disrespectful to any member of the Committee, the Chairman or the House, but that should be on the record so that the House authorities can consider the matter in the light of the restricted time that has been given, not only to the Bill that we are considering, but to others.

John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien.

Bill O'Brien: Order. May I deal with the first point of order and give the Committee the benefit of my experience? At the Committee's first sitting, it decided that the business would be dealt with from a certain date to another date. Within those two dates, the Committee can meet as often as it wants and it can have as much time as it wants. It is unfortunate that the end of that period is this afternoon, but if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) wanted to have more time to debate the amendments and our business, it would have been wiser to raise the matter last week or the week before, when the Committee that decided the timetable could have been called. You could have arranged more hours; you could have sat through the night; you could have sat whenever you wanted between the starting date and the end. Unfortunately, this is the end.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. You are, of course, absolutely right to remind the Committee that the House has already decided matter. Am I therefore correct to point out to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who lectured us on the subject of arrogance for half an hour this morning, that her intemperance does not stand her in good stead, and that we really should not waste another eight minutes debating the lost eight minutes?

Bill O'Brien: That is not a point of order for me.

John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Like other members of the Committee, I am delighted that you have come along. I noticed that you took the Chair at 14.37. It is now 14.42. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham complains about losing eight minutes, but she has wasted five minutes with typical waffle. If she would get on with the business we might get some decent—

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I should like to move on. I understand that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was winding up on the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: Further to my point of order, Mr. O'Brien. May I just make one swift, brief point? The programme motion specifically names the time for the sitting as between half-past 2 and 5 o'clock—this is the one sitting for which times are specifically mentioned. That is why I have raised valid points of order that ought to be considered in the light of the precedent that you have now set. This appears to be yet another occasion when our time is eaten into. Unless you want to reply to that supplementary point of order, Mr. O'Brien, I shall continue. Clause 5 Meaning of assistance

Clause 5 - Meaning of assistance

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 12, in page 2, line 32, leave out from `assistance''' to end of line 35 and insert 
`means assistance in the fields of economic development, administration and social services, consisting in the making available of the services of any body or person, training facilities, the supply of material, or the results of research undertaken in any such fields.'.

Cheryl Gillan: We had reached the stage at which the Minister had responded to the amendment, which would include in the definitions the term ``economic development''. The wording was taken from the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
 I must admit that the Minister did not convince me by his brief response that there was anything wrong with the old wording, and I cannot for the life of me understand why we must embark on a new definition. The attitude adopted appears to be ``out with the old and on with the new'' for no good reason. I will therefore withdraw the amendment, because I should like to explore the matter on Report and Third Reading. I hope that by doing so I can make up for lost time, and that the Minister will give me credit for having done so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Financial assistance

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
 `(2A) The value of loans made available to a country by way of financial assistance shall not, taking one year with another, amount to more than 10 per cent. of development assistance to that country.'.
 It is apt that I rise to propose amendment No. 13, which stands also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). It will probably please the Committee to learn that I can make my points about the amendment fairly swiftly. 
 The amendment would prevent countries from running up substantial debts to the UK Exchequer by limiting the proportion of development assistance that is provided to them in the form of loans. In proposing the amendment, we hope to ensure that development aid is provided mostly in the form of grants. We are concerned that a new drive to make loans to developing countries could lead to their getting into debt again, so we want to establish some sort of device to ensure that the Department of International Development is limited in the proportion of grant aid and loans that it is able to give to any one country. I am sure that the Minister would regard that as a sensible approach. 
 When in government, the Conservatives cancelled £1.2 billion of loans owed to the then Overseas Development Administration by developing countries. That helped to relieve their burden of debt. Conservative Members are genuinely concerned that a new push to provide loans to projects could lead to the debt burden becoming an issue again. The progress made under Governments of both parties would be reversed, because there will no limitation on the actions taken by the current Government or a future Government when the legislation comes into force. 
 We are also concerned that the British taxpayer will not get value for money from the loans. The Government must be sure that payment will be forthcoming and is guaranteed, and that a proper risk assessment is undertaken before projects are considered. We are also concerned about the countries that are eligible for loans from DFID. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government plan to make loans to projects in countries that have failed to pay back debts to the United Kingdom: for example, will the Government supply loans to heavily indebted poor countries? 
 We have included a limit of 10 per cent., but I shall not be hoist on that petard. The figure seemed reasonable when we drafted the amendment, but we do not have to live or die by it. I hope that the principle of the amendment will appeal to the Minister and that he will be able to comment on it. If he cannot accept our suggestion, can he make some critical and qualitative comment on the percentage of development assistance given by way of loans to any individual country and tell us how the Department arrives at such decisions? 
 In the past, many developing countries got into serious debt. We should not condone that or contribute to it through any of our mechanisms. If we tie the hands of future Secretaries of State by setting parameters that will, if they take advantage of them, afford them some safety, it is likely that they will be grateful. The voluntary imposition of controls on the Secretary of State through this legislation will give him or her added protection against outside criticism. 
 Nothing in the clause states that financial assistance should be provided on a project basis. If the Minister can reassure us about that now, it will cancel the necessity to discuss it in connection with another part of the Bill. Are there any means of protecting the loans or grants by ensuring that they go to projects rather than directly to Governments? If funds are directed at projects and delivered through, for example, non-governmental organisations, there is far less likelihood of abuse. The problem of Zimbabwe was raised at International Development questions yesterday. It provides a prime example of aid funds going directly to a Government who have then managed to spend vast amounts of money pursuing a local war that is of no direct benefit to any Zimbabwean citizen. 
 I have posed several questions to the Minister, including whether the Government have placed any limit on the value of loans to individual projects. The Government have said that they do not envisage the loans being widely used, but if that is the case, why is there no limit in the Bill? I will not be hoist on the 10 per cent. petard, but I should like to know. Most important is the question of what precautions have the Government taken to ensure that the Bill does not lead to further indebtedness in poor countries? 
 I see the relief on the faces of Labour Members as I say that, at the moment, that is all I want to say on amendment No. 13.

Jenny Tonge: I shall be even more brief. I do not think that I should support the amendment. By way of explanation, I refer the hon. Lady to clauses 1 to 3, which I think are the most important clauses in the Bill. Loans would in any case be granted only if they were
``likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty'', 
or for the purpose of 
``furthering sustainable development'' 
 ``improving the welfare of the population'', 
or if they were, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, 
``prudent having regard to the likelihood of ... generating lasting benefits for the population''. 
No Secretary of State in his or her right mind who was mindful of those clauses would give an excessive loan to a country that was already terribly in hock to the world community. The hon. Lady should refer constantly to those clauses because they are the conditions of the Bill.

Andrew Robathan: I am in some doubt. Are we also considering amendment No. 21 as well?

Bill O'Brien: No. We are discussing only amendment No. 13.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for that advice. I thought that they were grouped together.
 The amendment is both interesting and important. It should be considered carefully because for the past 12 months to two years, Jubilee 2000 has been campaigning in support of the desirable aim of getting rid of all debts owed by developing countries to developed countries. I am not 100 per cent. behind the activities of Jubilee 2000, but its view that developing countries have far too many overbearing debts is supported by most people and it seems sensible that we should not make excessive loans. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that no future Government would do that, but Governments have done it in the past and they may do so again.

Tony McNulty: You are wanted outside.

Andrew Robathan: The Government Whip is always trying to be helpful. On Tuesday, it had to do with my tie; today, it has to do with my absent colleagues. However, I do not intend to leave the Room, as I have a lot more to say—[Hon. Members: ``Oh no!''] I see that the news is greeted with enthusiasm by Labour Members.
 The Government's policies on debt reduction are in general extremely laudable and I, like every member of the Committee, support the positive and sensible actions of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. Furthermore, they have taken no account of the hyperbole that sometimes issues from Jubilee 2000. The Government are, of course, building on the work of the previous Administration, particularly on the Trinidad terms negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), which led to a tremendous reduction in debt among developing countries. 
 We must consider carefully how to prevent loans being made in future, taking into account both bilateral aid and multilateral aid. I generally support the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but the World Bank has not always lent money wisely—indeed, many of its overseas loans were made without the controls that we referred to on Tuesday. We all want a means of preventing that from happening again to be enshrined in legislation. Although the Minister said in a previous sitting that the Bill should bind future Governments, I must point out that we cannot bind future Governments, because Parliament can always make further legislation.

Chris Mullin: We want to ensure that future Governments who want to restore the link between aid and trade, which has abused our aid programme in the past, would have to justify that decision to Parliament. Of course I realise that we cannot bind future Parliaments.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I am looking at the amendment, and no reference has yet been made to 10 per cent. or any other figure. I ask the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to speak to the amendment.

Andrew Robathan: Of course I shall, Mr. O'Brien. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, 10 per cent. is an arbitrary figure. However, it seems sensible to prevent that which has happened in the past, when overseas aid was generally given by way of loans, from happening again in future. The amendment is sensible and I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully. We are trying to lay down some ground rules and those parameters should be included in the Bill.
 I support the Government's action on reducing debt and the policy that they have adopted since coming into, although to give grant aid rather than loans was the policy of the ODA throughout most of the 1990s. However, we must ensure that future Governments would have to ask Parliament if they wanted to start making heavy loans again. 
 [Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair

Chris Mullin: The amendment would place an arbitrary limit on the ability of the Secretary of State to choose the most appropriate form of assistance to provide to a country. The effect would be that the Secretary of State would not be free to determine in consultation with the country for which the assistance was to be provided the most appropriate and effective form of that assistance. The needs of the developing country must be the driving force behind the choice of the form of assistance, otherwise the primacy of the overarching requirement of poverty reduction and the two development purposes will be compromised.
 That said, hon. Members have made some perfectly reasonable points. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that there had been a history of inappropriate loans. As so often in our deliberations, however, the hon. Member for Richmond Park made a strong point in response, saying that the principles guiding Secretaries of State in future would be the provisions of clauses 1 to 3. We will be a long way from the days when we gave loans to countries that could not afford to pay them back. 
 Currently, all financial aid is in the form of grants. There is no intention of initiating a new push to provide loans. All that the Bill does is retain the power in the 1980 Act. The Government have not used the development assistance programme for any loans to developing countries and it is extremely unlikely that there would be any grounds for using the aid programme to lend to heavily indebted countries as, for the most part, that would not be appropriate. If a country is graduating from the aid programme, a figure higher than 10 per cent. might be appropriate, but such instances are not likely to be a big feature of our aid programme. We seek merely to leave the Secretary of State with the discretion to act in circumstances that we cannot necessarily predict. 
 We work with the Zimbabwe Government only when there is no alternative channel for assistance and when we can be confident that our support will directly benefit the poor or is necessary to build future recovery. We have not given budgetary support or programme aid to Zimbabwe for many years, and there is not much likelihood that we shall do so in the foreseeable future.

Cheryl Gillan: None the less, aid has gone to Zimbabwe directly from this country through the European Union, as we pay 30 per cent. of aid money to the EU. Is the Minister saying such aid is outwith the set parameters?

Chris Mullin: It is outwith the parameters of the clause, Mr. Butterfill—welcome—that we are debating. The amendment would place an arbitrary fetter on the Secretary of State's ability to choose the most appropriate form of assistance in circumstances that we cannot foresee or predict.
 It is not current policy to lend to heavily indebted countries. Almost all our aid is in the form of grants, for which repayment is not required, so I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Butterfill. The whole Committee will be glad to see that nothing untoward befell you before you came to chair our sitting.
 I am disappointed by the sparsity of the Minister's response. I do not feel that he has a grip on this piece of legislation, not least because in his brief reply to my previous amendment he told me that there was no need to return to the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. He said that we did not need its definitions because the Bill was a case of ``out with the old and in with the new'', yet he says that he wants to retain the power of the 1980 Act in this instance. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it, as I have said. 
 To say that all current aid is in the form of grants is a very weak argument. We are told repeatedly that the point of the Bill is to bind the hands of future Secretaries of State and ensure that nothing untoward can happen. I thought that the explanatory notes would explain what is in the Government's mind, but I find that I being told one thing by the Minister and reading something else in the explanatory notes. He said that it is extremely unlikely that loans would become an issue, but explanatory note 29 states: 
 ``It is not envisaged that the Secretary of State will make extensive use of these forms of financial assistance in preference to the power to make grants or loans.'' 
Nothing in the explanatory notes states that loans will not be used. 
 The Minister gave something away when he said that slightly more than 10 per cent. might be appropriate. I am sure that there is a glimmer of light, that a door is opening and that the Minister believes that the amendment is reasonable. I hope that he will at least accept the spirit of the amendment. He has not answered my questions, but I shall give him another chance. What precautions have the Government taken to ensure that their policies do not lead to further indebtedness in poor countries?

Chris Mullin: I said that our main precaution was not to lend them money.

Cheryl Gillan: With respect, methinks the Minister doth protest too much. He has in his grasp the instrument and the wherewithal to allow some countries, unfortunately, to go down that road. There seems to be no safeguard for taxpayers that satisfies the Opposition. If loans will not to be used much, if at all, why is there not a self-imposed limit?
 I am not satisfied with the Minister's comments. I have been extremely generous in withdrawing amendments following responses from the Minister, but I must press amendment No. 13 to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Jenny Tonge: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
 `(5) Financial assistance may not be provided now or in the future for the purposes of `tied aid'.'.
 Welcome back, Mr. Butterfill. I want to ensure that clauses 1, 2 and 3 remain paramount. During discussion of the previous amendment, the Minister referred to untying aid, but there is no reference to that in the Bill. If I were someone other than myself, I would spend the next 45 minutes giving countless examples of tied aid and how it went wrong in the past, but I shall not do so. I shall say only that the globalisation White Paper contains a commitment to untying aid, as does the Conservative paper on international development, and my party has always been committed to that objective. The Bill should therefore include a clear, unambiguous statement to prevent any manipulation of aid in future.

Andrew Robathan: I, too, am pleased to see you back, Mr. Butterfill. I hope that you were not indisposed.
 I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are taking part and playing a positive role in the debate, although it is a pity that the other Liberal Democrat Member who should have been here seems to have escaped back to Winchester—perhaps he is concentrating on electioneering.

Chris Mullin: He does not need to.

Andrew Robathan: I hope that he does.
 The amendment is sensible. I recognise that there are sometimes perfectly reasonable arguments for tying aid, but it is right that we should aim to untie it and Conservatives support the Government's action to do so. However, if that is their aim, the Bill should say so. It is bizarre that the Bill contains no clear statement to the effect that ``This Bill will untie aid and trade.'' 
 Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State said: 
 ``Without change, a future Minister or Administration could reinstate the use of the aid budget to soften the terms of commercial contracts through mixed credits, as under the old aid-and-trade provision. An Administration could re-tie aid, thus distorting its use and decreasing its efficiency, as the previous Government, or use that aid budget to serve the short-term political or commercial purposes of the UK.''—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 158.] 
I do not accept all the right hon. Lady's criticisms of the previous Government, because I have often heard her praise the ODA. That is not surprising, because the same civil servants who are now implementing her policies both at home and overseas did a pretty good job before the previous election and are generally continuing to do so. 
 On Tuesday, at the beginning of the Committee's first sitting, the Minister said: 
 ``We believe that the Bill will prevent a future Administration using development funds to serve short-term political or commercial ends, and, in particular, that it will prevent the tying of aid.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 March 2001; c. 3.] 
As closely as I study the Bill, I cannot see that it anywhere prevents the tying of aid. It says that the focus must be on the alleviation of poverty: that is helpful, and we all support it. It says that that must be the overriding aim, which we also support. However, it does not specifically exclude the tying of aid to trade. Given his grandiose statements, the Minister must explain how the Bill will prevent the tying of aid to trade—which is, after all, what he wants.

Cheryl Gillan: We had an extraordinary flash of agreement in a previous sitting, when the hon. Member for Richmond Park actually voted for one of our amendments. However, I feel obliged to tell that if she presses her amendment to a vote, I shall not vote for it—not because I do not agree with it, but because it has not gone too far.
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I appreciate the reasons behind the amendment. Essentially, it would enshrine in the Bill its main purpose. Let us not beat about the bush: we have frequently been told that the purpose of the Bill is to make this country's overseas aid programme whiter than white, although I am unsure how that will sit alongside the aid programmes of our European partners and the influence that they bring to bear on the European fund. This small amendment would remove the tied aid provision. 
 However, I would prefer the amendment to include a definition that took tied aid from the realms of possibility and probability into those of surety and security. If the hon. Member for Richmond Park presses it to a vote, I shall not support it simply because I feel that it should have gone further. However, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter and amendments in the same vein that might be made to the Bill. Thus far, our efforts have been unsuccessful but my hope is that a door might be opening. Even if he cannot accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will give its subject matter further consideration.

Chris Mullin: As I explained previously, our aim is to keep the Bill simple, to avoid getting bogged down in definitions that would become a playground for lawyers, and to underpin in clauses 1 to 3—especially in clause 1—the primary purpose of overseas aid, which is to contribute to a reduction in poverty, to further sustainable development and to improve the welfare of the population concerned. When judged by those criteria, no reasonable person would imagine that we could go back to the days when aid was tied to commercial or foreign policy objectives. In saying so, I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Richmond Park is an unreasonable person. Her contributions thus far suggest that she is extremely reasonable and we agree entirely with her intentions; we simply see one or two practical difficulties, which I shall touch on.
 The Government have stated their position clearly. Under the Bill, a policy of tying aid would not be sustainable. The inefficiency and mixed motives inherent in tying aid would so impair the Secretary of State in the proper exercise of the core power that the policy would be open to serious challenge in the courts. As I said, we believe that any future Administration who wished to re-establish tying the UK development programme should first consult Parliament. We did not expressly prohibit such a policy because of the difficulty of drafting definitions. We know what we mean by tied aid, but writing it down in prescriptive form would run the risk of falling between two stools. On the one hand, we might not catch all that we intended to catch. By establishing the meaning of tied aid and ruling it out, we would by implication allow anything that is not brought within that definition, which would leave room to argue that some tied aid is permissible. On the other hand, by attempting to catch all that is pernicious about tied aid, we might catch some practices that are, or in certain circumstances might be, perfectly acceptable or even useful. 
 For example, we have been advised that, were we to accept the amendment, we would jeopardise the provision of assistance to some international institutions that limit the provision of assistance to their members. That is true of the main international financial institutions, of the United Nations—of which countries such as Switzerland are not members—of the regional development banks and of the European Development Fund. I am not a lawyer—all I can do is pass on that advice to the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I doubt whether she would want to jeopardise our relationship with those institutions, but we are advised that that might happen if her amendment is accepted. 
 By opting instead to let the principles and purposes of clause 1 direct the thinking of the Secretary of State, we retain the flexibility to use means compatible with those principles and purposes while effectively preventing the pursuit of opposing policies. That is why we have not chosen to make a specific prohibition on tied aid in the Bill.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member for Richmond Park has raised an important and sensible point. If the Minister is saying that legal advice has been taken and that therefore the Government cannot refine the definition, that rather negates the purpose of the Bill. As we know, most of our European partners and most other countries often tie aid to trade. There is no reason why, as far as I can judge from the Bill, under a future Administration, or indeed, under this Administration, one might not, in giving money to NGOs, give the money only to British NGOs, or indeed why, in giving money for some particular development purpose such as construction—I know that we are not keen on dams at present and I am glad of it—one might not give the money specifically to a British company, which is tying aid with trade. The Minister has left the situation open.

Chris Mullin: No, we believe that clause 1 is adequate for that purpose. We have made the situation clear and I am told that ministerial pronouncements are taken into account when courts are interpreting legislation. The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue in mentioning NGOs. I should like the hon. Member for Richmond Park to hear that I have been advised that there are one or two grey areas, one of which relates to the civil society challenge funds, which are open only to British-based NGOs. There is a danger that her amendment would make those impossible. I have considered the matter carefully and I am sympathetic. I know exactly what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve. I approve, as I expect do all members of the Committee, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who believes that it does not go far enough.

Cheryl Gillan: That is not fair.

Chris Mullin: I do not believe that that is unfair; that is what the hon. Lady said.

Andrew Rowe: To row back to a point that we discussed the other day, is the Minister satisfied that his Department is making sufficient efforts to ensure that UK NGOs, to which the Department gives money, are energetic enough in ensuring that as high as possible a percentage of their employees come from the relevant countries and are not expatriates? In many cases, the effect of our policies and those of other northern countries, even where the money given out is not intended as tied aid, seems to be that a huge proportion is taken as salaries for, if one would like to put it this way, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant workers rather than people from the intended countries?

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which stands on its own. It is not often that we employ too many British citizens, who are actually rather expensive to employ and maintain in foreign climes, when there are perfectly capable local people available. One finds that time after time. Our Department increasingly makes a practice of employing well qualified local people. I have been in both Albania and Kyrgyzstan in the past few weeks, where extremely bright local people are working for us. We have taken that point on board.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister clarify whether, as he implied, Pepper v. Hart would apply to any future interpretation of the Bill?

Chris Mullin: I will not give an answer off the top of my head. If news reaches me in the next few minutes, I will give a definitive reply, otherwise the hon. Lady will have to wait until later.
 We have given careful thought to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and are sympathetic to it. If she is willing to withdraw it, we may think about the matter further, although I cannot commit to any undertaking. I have told her of our legal advice. I would be grateful if she would give me the opportunity to take the matter away and think about it further.

Jenny Tonge: I apologise for all my comings and goings but I did want advice on that point because I was not sure what would happen if I pressed the amendment to a vote. I thank the hon. Member for Blaby for his support; he was very gallant. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, although it was curious that she was supporting the amendment in one respect, but not in another because it does not go far enough. For all the fluff and flummery that we have had during Committee, that important issue was not picked up by the Conservatives and tabled as a better, padded-out amendment. Never mind.

Andrew Robathan: It would appear that that was not picked up by Labour Members either. I congratulate the hon. Lady on picking it up.

Jenny Tonge: Perhaps it is more difficult to pick things up if you are in Government.

Andrew Robathan: Why?

Jenny Tonge: I do not know; I am not part of the Government.
 It was also interesting that the Minister said that no reasonable person would tie aid to the future. In politics, we must assume that there will always be an unreasonable person. Even in the Government there may be such a person who wants to pursue tied aid. That is why the amendment should be included in the Bill. 
 With regard to the difficulty of drafting definitions, I must apologise to the Minister because I did not understand his explanation. It sounded like something Sir Humphrey might say—trying to ensure that there would be a loophole in future, so he could put his own pet project through. The Minister's reply was comically drafted and I commend the civil servant who wrote it. 
 I will take the advice of the Clerk and the Minister and withdraw the amendment, but I will return to the matter on Report unless I hear more from the Government. The words ``tied aid'' should appear in the Bill; the Government must make it clear where they stand on the issue.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady is on the verge of withdrawing the amendment, but she has not yet done so. I rise briefly because she said that I did not table an amendment along the lines she described.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. I understood that the hon. Member for Richmond Park had withdrawn the amendment.

Bill O'Brien: I had not yet put the question that asks leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. When I do so, and if the Committee decides that it will accept the request for withdrawal, the amendment will be withdrawn; until that point, it is still open to debate.

Cheryl Gillan: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I want to respond to the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park about why we had not tabled an amendment along the lines she suggests, and made a better fist of it. That was the spirit of what she had to say. Once we had seen that there was an amendment that would give us an opportunity to raise the matter, there was no need to do anything else. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has not had the advantage of hearing what I have to say on any other part of the Bill.

Jenny Tonge: I remind the hon. Lady that I was chastised on Tuesday for tabling my amendment so late, so how could her party have seen it before tabling its own amendment?

Cheryl Gillan: If the hon. Lady thinks about the time scale, she will realise that I had plenty of time, after her starred amendment appeared on the amendment paper, to table an amendment for today's proceedings. However, I chose not to.
 I am pleased that the Minister will re-examine the issue. It is important, but I do not want to rehearse points that have been made many times before, and which his predecessor, especially, has heard in numerous small debates and exchanges. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say on Report. I should be grateful if he would guarantee that there will be sufficient time between the end of Committee proceedings and Report and Third Reading, for us to have dialogue. The Bill has been introduced with undue haste, but if time is now made available, we would be happy to examine any Government amendments on the matter that might be brought forward at the next stage. I say that in a genuine spirit of co-operation.

Chris Mullin: Word has now reached me regarding the relevance of Pepper v. Hart. The records of debates in both Houses, including those in their Committees, can be taken into account in an interpretation.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking inspiration. I was not trying to catch him out. As he had referred to the proceedings being taken into account in an interpretation, I thought that he was familiar with Pepper v. Hart.

Chris Mullin: I am afraid that I am just a simple country boy.

Cheryl Gillan: There is nothing simple about any country boy that I know.
 I thank the Minister for that information, and look forward to hearing what he will introduce before Report and Third Reading.

Jenny Tonge: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Terms on which assistance is provided

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Clause 7 sets out the terms on which the Secretary of State may provide assistance, and states that Treasury consent is required for all kinds of financial assistance other than a grant. As it is the main financial clause of the Bill, it is apposite to raise issues concerning bribery and to interrogate the Minister.

Chris Mullin: That has been ruled out of order.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister, from a sedentary position, mumbles that such a discussion has at some point been ruled out of order. I do not understand how it can be out of order for me to seek clarifications from the Minister in the clause 7 stand part debate—it is a financial clause. I will just keep going.

Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. I think that the hon. Lady is now approaching amendment No. 16, which has not been selected. That is the amendment that deals with bribery.

Bill O'Brien: Amendment No. 16 relates to clause 20. The fact that it has not been selected does not prevent a stand part debate on clause 7.

Cheryl Gillan: That was extraordinary. This is the main financial clause of the Bill and I considered it apposite to raise the issue of bribery so that the Minister could turn his mind to the matter. I had no intention of moving amendment No. 16.

Chris Mullin: So the hon. Lady will move the arguments instead.

Cheryl Gillan: We are allowed to move arguments when we scrutinise legislation and this is the relevant clause. The Minister is anticipating the points that I want to make before I have made them.
 I want to raise the issue of bribery because both Government and Opposition Members are concerned that the Bill does not address bribery and corruption. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) raised the matter on Wednesday at International Development questions, when the Secretary of State said: 
 ``We are committed to introducing such legislation on corruption, but it will be a large Bill and would not fit into the slim International Development Bill. If it had been combined with the Bill we should not have been able to introduce the Bill in this Parliament. The legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is important and it will be introduced as soon as possible.''—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1004.] 
I should have thought that the position on bribery and corruption could have been included in the clause because we want appropriate action to enforce the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery as the International Development Bill enters the statute book. The financial terms in the clause do not refer to that, but we know that corruption hurts the poor and is a serious barrier to economic development in developing countries. 
 The OECD convention on bribery came into effect on 15 February 1999 and was signed by the 29 OECD member countries and five non-member countries. It states that 
``it is a criminal offence...for any person intentionally to offer, promise or pay''— 
 a bribe— 
``to a foreign public official...in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.'' 
As the Minister knows, the convention was signed in Paris on 17 December 1997. 
 We do not have the advantage of having an amendment to the clause, which relates to the financial terms on which assistance is provided. However, I shall make the Minister a generous offer. The Secretary of State expressed her wish to bring forward legislation on bribery as soon as possible, but that would add to the size of the Bill. Will he consider the clause to see whether the spirit of that convention can be encompassed in the legislation on Report and Third Reading? Indeed, had the Bill not been introduced with such indecent haste the clause could have been expanded to include many other provisions. 
 I shall not make a big issue out of amendment No. 16, but I shall ask the Minister why he will not grasp the opportunity. Opposition Members are not consistently voting against contentious legislation in this Committee because we have given the Bill our blessing. Why does he not relax and take the time to bring forward legislation that has consistently been called for by both Government and Opposition Members? Perhaps the clause is an apposite position to allow the Minister the opportunity to respond.

Andrew Rowe: I should like to raise a different point. Assistance other than financial assistance relates to an issue that is of considerable concern to the whole of the development community. What is DFID's policy on the pilfering and misdirection of assistance in kind in poor countries by, for example, guerrilla forces?
 I have heard it suggested, for instance, that to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people who are being ruined by civil or even foreign war, it is acceptable that the warring factions should take 40 per cent. of what is delivered, so that 60 per cent. may reach the poorest of the poor. The counter-argument is that such condoning of the misappropriation of food aid serves simply to prolong the conflict. If the warring factions get their hands on large supplies of food and clothing, they will stay in the field longer than they would otherwise do. I am aware that the issue is a difficult one, but it would be inappropriate to allow the clause, which refers to assistance ``other than financial assistance'', to pass without giving the Minister a chance to share the Department's view on such a vexed issue.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I do not think that he intended to provide examples, but I have two. Under the previous Government, during the Bosnia campaign, a great deal of aid from Britain was sent by truck to Bosnia. It was well known that all sides would take 10 per cent., 50 per cent., or sometimes even 100 per cent., of that aid. They would let the next convoy go through if they took 100 per cent.
 In Sudan—and I know that the hon. Member for Richmond Park has been to southern Sudan—both sides in the conflict profit from the aid flights. Yet the aid agencies cannot prevent it. They must give something. It is tacitly accepted.

Andrew Rowe: I am grateful for those two illustrations of my point. They throw into relief the contrast between individual compassion and Government humanitarian assistance. Individual compassion suggests that someone who has food will give it to a starving person, but when Governments try to act on that admirable principle, it is easy for a difficult equation to develop.
 Is it right to continue to fly large amounts of supplies into a country, thus prolonging a war, so that the misery of the non-combatant population lasts for two years longer than it would otherwise have done—or in Sudan's case, for 20 years longer? At least some of those living in misery will still be alive at the end of the operation. Alternatively, is it preferable to take a hard-hearted view and announce that no more aid will be given, in the hope that the warring factions will run out of supplies and be forced to the negotiating table, but in the knowledge, too, that the decision will lead to a considerable number of those living in misery dying? That is a serious issue and it will be a great help to hear the Minister's views on it, especially as he is relatively new to the Department.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is quite right. The pilfering of aid, not only by warring parties but sometimes also by Governments, is serious, and we take it seriously. We evaluate every programme that we are engaged in to ensure that the aid goes where it is intended to and, if that is not happening, to make the necessary changes. In extreme cases, such as those that the hon. Gentleman was outlining a moment ago—life and death matters that are probably more relevant to emergency aid than to wider programmes—we must make up our mind on a case-by-case basis. The balance must always be the extent to which we can achieve what everyone wants us to achieve—helping people who desperately need help. I do not pretend that the judgment is ever likely to be easy. It is much easier to make judgments about aid to corrupt Governments or about diverting aid because, without their co-operation, it is impossible to carry on. We increasingly target our aid on those Governments who are willing to demonstrate, in practice as well as by rhetoric, that they are willing to devote their own resources as well as ours to the welfare of their people. That is why we have recently favoured Governments, such as those of Uganda or Mozambique, who, although they are starting from a desperate situation, have made considerable progress in improving the welfare of their people. Those decisions will always be difficult, and I do not pretend that the answers will always be perfect.

Andrew Rowe: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the question so seriously. He is being a little over-optimistic in what he said about short-term humanitarian aid. The country that springs most readily to mind in that context, partly because the Select Committee took evidence on it, is Sudan. The conflict there has been going on for so long that one wonders whether the international community is taking it seriously and whether it should take a new look at the situation there.

Chris Mullin: The same difficulty arises in Afghanistan, where the Government have little interest, if any, in the welfare of the people. We are looking for ways to get emergency aid to those who are now starving and dying of cold. No one would dispute the need to do that, even if some of the aid ends up where it ought not to be. However, we would not provide such Governments with capacity-building aid—such aid is given increasingly often—because we would not want to legitimise those regimes.

Andrew Robathan: That is an important point, yet it is extraordinarily difficult. Yesterday, I met some representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change, the Opposition party in Zimbabwe, and they said that people there are starving. However, they also specially said that aid is used by the Zimbabwe Government as a tool, and that they deliver aid to their own supporters but not to those whom they deem to support the Opposition. I know that it is extraordinarily difficult, especially because of the HIV-AIDS programme, but we can see that the money and aid given to Governments such as that in Zimbabwe is often completely misused.

Chris Mullin: Yes, Zimbabwe is a case in point. We regularly review the aid that we provide to Zimbabwe, and we have withdrawn or phased out some existing programmes precisely for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, some aid is people-to-people, in which we can bypass the Government. Aid is given also if it can be demonstrated that part of the Government is still functioning. I suspect that that is true of the HIV programmes, and we must carry on doing our best for that programme for as long as possible in order to make a difference. However, when aid ceases to make a difference, or if it is keeping in power a regime that ought not to be in power, we must make a judgment about withdrawing it.

Andrew Robathan: We were told yesterday by the MDC that the Minister in charge of the AIDS programme has sacked the entire team. I do not know where that leaves the Government.

Chris Mullin: I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman was told yesterday. If he wants to draw the details to my attention, I will gladly check them out. As I said, we regularly review aid to countries, such as Zimbabwe, where the situation is changing—for the worse, I am afraid to say. We have reduced some of our aid programmes there and may have to make further reductions. The principle is that where we feel that we are still making a difference for the citizens—who, let us face it, are more the victims of the Zimbabwe Government than are any of us—we ought to continue to do our best until it can be demonstrated that our action is ineffective and pointless.
 To return to the points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I was just about right—I do not know whether you noticed, Mr. Butterfill—when I predicted that they would be those made on amendment No. 16 under another guise.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I noted that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham dealt with the question of bribery, which she is entitled to do under clause 7; I did not note her trying to move amendment No. 16.

Chris Mullin: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill; my observation was the same as yours.
 The points about the bribery convention were dealt with yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we are committed to introducing a Bill, but that that is not possible between now and the end of this Parliament. However, she also made it clear that we have greatly increased the Department's anti-corruption work. She said: 
 ``We are increasingly helping Governments to strengthen their financial management systems, anti-corruption authorities, customs and tax authorities, and civil service and legal systems ... We are also working with the World Bank Institute and with Germany, Norway and the Netherlands to help to extend anti-corruption work across the developing world. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will strengthen the United Kingdom's capacity to seize and return assets plundered by corrupt Governments. We are helping the Governments of Pakistan and Nigeria to make use of existing legal systems to seek the return of such assets.'' —[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1004.] 
My right hon. Friend repeated our commitment to legislating to strengthen United Kingdom law against bribery and corruption abroad in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention. I have nothing to add to that.

Cheryl Gillan: I am delighted that the Minister has finally acknowledged that I was not trying to move amendment No. 16, because that was not my intention. I sought a suitable vehicle to raise the important issue of bribery and corruption. Although I have no intention of asking my colleagues to vote against the clause, because I gave an undertaking to the Minister that we would not oppose the principle of the Bill, it is right that we have the opportunity to raise points about it.
 Back in April 2000, the Government promised to pass legislation as soon as possible. Considering how much time the Government have had, and especially because the 1997 development White Paper, which is the anchor of the Bill, stated: 
 ``As part of our commitment to combat corruption, we support OECD initiatives to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions'', 
I should have expected the relevant measures to have been included in the Bill. It is a great shame that they are not, because the Secretary of State, the Department's team and, indeed, the Minister, although he has only recently joined the Dept, are all committed to the issue, as was the Minister's predecessor. It is such a shame that no time has been found. Comment outside the House is beginning to reflect badly on the Minister and the Department.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Lady has complained at some length that, uncontroversial though the Bill is, the time that we have to deal with it has been insufficient for the 20 clauses that it contains. If we were to add to it a further great tranche of legislation, it would become a considerable piece of legislation that would require careful scrutiny. She would then no doubt have even more cause to complain about the lack of time. She is arguing for more legislation while at the same time saying that there is not enough time to deal with what there is. That does not add up.

Cheryl Gillan: That is one of the most pathetic interventions that I have ever heard from a Minister. Given the Government's record—especially this week—under such circumstances, they would probably have deemed the Bill to have passed through all its stages, and the Committee stage would have lasted just one day.

Andrew Robathan: Some of us have been speculating further on the Bill, and we have been wondering whether there is much likelihood of it, valuable as it is, and supported as it is by all parties, completing its passage through both Houses during this Parliament.

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are now getting into a debate on timetabling. We have drifted a long way from the question of whether clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. May we please return to that debate?

Cheryl Gillan: I spring to my feet, Mr. Butterfill, to follow your edicts. I have only two more points, which I was about to make before the Minister took us into a discussion of timetabling and the length of time available to scrutinise the Bill. The slow progress on reform is beginning to attract comment from outside the House, which is a shame. Transparency International, for example, has stated that it could cause concern among other OECD members that have already updated their domestic legislation.

Bill O'Brien: Order. The hon. Lady is doing precisely what I suggested she should not do. She must return to the clause stand part debate, which relates to the terms on which assistance is provided.

Cheryl Gillan: Yes, Mr. Butterfill. I was merely saying, in response to the Minister's point that such a measure was too substantial for inclusion in the Bill, that outside commentators have said that there is a danger that, if we proceed too slowly on the matter, we will look shabby. I have raised that important matter, and I am not satisfied with the Government's response. Now is the time to think about what may be proposed on Report and Third Reading. In the light of the Minister's unsatisfactory response, I may return to the matter at a later stage.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Powers of statutory bodies

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—
`(c) where the statutory body concerned is a Northern Ireland body, only with the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
 I have had words with the Clerk, and I understand that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), it is in order for me to move the amendment.

Bill O'Brien: It is indeed.

Cheryl Gillan: I will attract the hon. Gentleman's approbation, because he would not table an amendment to a Bill and fail to be here to move it after it has been selected by the Chairman unless something untoward had happened to him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in good health, and that nothing has happened to prevent him from coming here to move the amendment.
 Having taken advice from the clerk, I shall speak briefly. I had not prepared to speak on the matter. I was interested in the debate, but the amendment raises the—[Interruption.] Did the Minister wish to say something?

Chris Mullin: Yes. I said—through chuckles from the usual channels—that the fact that the hon. Lady had not prepared to speak on the matter would not prevent her from doing so.

Cheryl Gillan: Praise where praise is due. That is admirable.
 Amendment No. 18 opens a can of worms in respect of devolution, as it relates to the differences between the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The amendment is about Northern Ireland. 
 Coupled with the clause is schedule 2, which details the statutory bodies to which the clause applies. If the amendment were deemed necessary and accepted by the Minister, an alteration to schedule 2 would result, however, in the light of the clause as drafted, I must ask whether schedule 2 contains a full and exhaustive list of statutory bodies to which the clause applies. Bodies such as the Scottish tourist board are not included. 
 I suppose that the basic questions raised by the amendment relate to what the Secretary of State is and is not in charge of and why there is no reference to Northern Ireland if the provisions apply to Wales and Scotland. I did not table the amendment and I was not prepared to speak to it, I but felt that it was only courteous to move it for the Government. Labour Back Benchers have been so well controlled by their Whip—they have not participated in our discussions—that I assumed that the amendment must have been Government-inspired. I hope that I was not wrong to assume that the Minister would therefore not object to it on the grounds that there was some inadvertent drafting error. I look forward to what he has to say.

Chris Mullin: The Government will resist the amendment, as it goes against the wishes of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We recognise that the Assembly should be consulted if and when we want to enter into arrangements with statutory bodies for which it is responsible. The Assembly will want to ensure that its statutory bodies do not divert resources towards international development work when they might more properly be used for domestic purposes.
 We closely consulted the Northern Ireland Assembly and all the devolved Administrations when drawing up the Bill, and we consulted the Assembly again about the amendment. It asked that any consultation regarding statutory bodies take place under the memorandum of understanding on devolved Administrations, rather than being prescribed by text in the Bill. The Bill reflects the Assembly's wishes, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the Minister's brief response, which raises more questions that it answers. If accepting the amendment is against the wishes of the Northern Ireland Assembly, may we have access to the process of consultation and the exchange of information between the Department and the Assembly? As there is now a difference between the Northern Irish Administration and the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales, may we have access to the discussions and exchange of papers between the Department, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
 I am willing give way to the Minister, who has championed transparency of Government for a long time, as I am sure that he will want to enlighten the Committee and the House about the discussions that have taken place. The Minister does not rise—that says it all. We have a Minister who is willing to nip off and do dirty deals, but he will not let us know how those decisions were arrived at.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. The hon. Lady accuses by my hon. Friend the Minister of doing dirty deals. Surely that is not in order.

Bill O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that although I deplore such accusations, they are not unparliamentary.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston for giving me a rest every now and then. However, I withdraw that remark. I did not mean that the Minister does dirty deals. However, he should not do deals without enabling us to scrutinise them. He may have consulted people, but it was not a transparent process.

Tom Clarke: If I may say so, the hon. Lady is becoming increasingly gracious. It is wonderful that she has withdrawn her remark.
 My hon. Friend the Minister has responded to an amendment that asked us to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly; the Assembly has been consulted and it wishes to be consulted no more. Will the hon. Lady not accept that and allow the Committee to get on with its business?

Cheryl Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of becoming my champion.
 That is not the point. The point is that before the Bill was drafted, the Minister consulted the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, if the amendment is not accepted, there is nothing in the Bill to permit further consultation. That is the reason for the amendment. I am not speaking for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, but such a provision would be an added protection for the future. For the moment, the Bill places the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in a position over and above that afforded to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Andrew Robathan: It is not an issue of great concern to me, but it would be useful if the Minister told us when and by what means the Northern Ireland Assembly was consulted.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
 The Minister said that the Northern Ireland Assembly has agreed that a memorandum of understanding is the vehicle by which it wishes to be consulted. If that is so, why is it not enshrined in the Bill? What is it about Northern Ireland that it does not get a look-in on the territorial responsibilities of the rest of the United Kingdom, whereas the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly do? I am not satisfied by the Minister's answers. I am sad that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was not inspired by the Government Front Bench but was a little expedition of his own. He is to be congratulated on the amendment, but would have been more warmly congratulated had he been here to move it.

Andrew Robathan: It would be helpful if the Minister would explain when and by what means the Northern Ireland Assembly was consulted.

Chris Mullin: Oh, Mr. Butterfill; what can I say? We consulted closely with the Assembly. I do not know on what day we did so.

Andrew Robathan: And how?

Chris Mullin: We consulted all the devolved Administrations, as is our habit when drawing up such legislation. I cannot usefully assist the Committee any more. I shall therefore sit down.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 14 - Functions of the commission etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Rowe: Given that the Secretary of State for the Department to which the Bill relates has always shown a degree of scepticism about the value of putting development funds into higher education, I want to know that there is a serious intention to ensure that suitable candidates are supported in adequate numbers in achieving the training or post-qualification opportunities that they need. I understand full well that the Secretary of State is concerned that in many countries the higher education system has tended to fall into the hands of a self-perpetuating elite. It is therefore difficult to pretend that in such countries a direct grant to the higher education system is a grant for the relief of poverty, especially if many who receive such grants or scholarships do not return to their own land.
 However, I also understand full well that in many countries in which DFID is active there is an unmet need among people who work with the disabled and the very poor, or who develop agricultural and other expertise, for the sort of opportunities that are currently—and, I suspect, will be for some time to come—provided only by higher education institutions in this country. I am anxious that we are making matters difficult for too many people, and I speak from considerable personal experience. 
 Every year for many years, my wife and I have entertained in our house students from the Centre for International Child Health, which is one of many centres of excellence in this country which provide training and postgraduate qualifications for people working overseas. I have been greatly impressed by the variety of people who come here for a year, who have included nuns who work in very difficult conditions in refugee camps in Goma and are funded, with difficulty, by their NGO. They return home with considerably more skill with which to develop the services that are so desperately needed. 
 One of my wife's current students is a man from Sierra Leone whose family must be traumatised since to take up his place on the course, he had to come here with an inappropriate visa, and his wife and child—when she first heard fireworks, she thought that she was being shot at—are now in a dispersal asylum centre somewhere in the north of England while he continues to study in London. That is one example of the difficulties encountered by people for whom we show too little sympathy and provide too few resources. 
 I am taking the opportunity presented by the clause to make the case to the Minister that we must be more generous and find better ways of ensuring that the people who win the scholarships are the right ones. One problem is that some are chosen by their superiors for a year of rest and recreation, either as a result of a bribe or because they think it would be nice, when people who need the course and could achieve much more as a result of it do not get a look in. 
 There are twin elements to be considered: first, we must ensure that the right people are selected and, secondly, we must increase the opportunities for people who, in the most difficult conditions, return to do the sort of work that DFID is supposed to be making a priority.

Jenny Tonge: I want more reassurance. Let me expand on the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. I want to ensure that students who have not been nominated by their Governments can come here on scholarships—that NGOs, for example, may nominate them. We have had a sort of assurance, but I am particularly concerned about people in southern Sudan who cannot come here on scholarships because their Government will not nominate them.

Chris Mullin: Clause 14 has been transferred from the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
 In reply to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not sceptical about the value of higher education. The Department's recent launch of the skills for development programme recognises the importance of developing key skills in any economy. However, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, development of a skills base is often best achieved by strengthening institutions in the country concerned, rather than by sending people to Britain on scholarships. That is my right hon. Friend's position and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is sensible. 
 Clauses 13 and 14 allow the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission to function. The scheme has been reviewed recently and my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the review, which concluded that the commission is generally doing a good job. However, in future, more will be done under the programme to promote education and training in developing countries as well as over here—for all the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman referred, poor people in the countries of the students concerned are not helped if students remain here after completing their studies. That will be the future trend. The clauses are taken from the 1980 Act, and we intend that the scheme will continue. 
 The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about specific provision for people not nominated by Governments. We have made provisions to allow individuals who might oppose their Government or who are exiles to benefit from the programme. I believe that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Lady an assurance to that effect on Second Reading, which is in column 203 of Hansard.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the Minister. I just wanted to hear that again.

Chris Mullin: I am just here to spread happiness.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jenny Tonge: Would the Minister explain exactly what clause 17(2) means? I presume that it refers to refugees coming to and going from their country of origin.

Chris Mullin: I am looking desperately for reassurance—and it is forthcoming. The answer is yes.

Cheryl Gillan: It would have been helpful if there had been some clarification about the clause in the explanatory notes, but I cannot find any.

Chris Mullin: Clause 17 is fairly self-evident. It provides a general interpretation of some of the terms used in the Bill. I could go into more detail on subsections(1) and (2), but I believe that they speak for themselves.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to.

New Clause 1 - Reduction in proverty: co-ordination within government

``.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to promote a focus on reduction in poverty throughout all Government departments and agencies in their relations with developing countries. 
 (2) The Secretary of State for International Development shall, jointly with Ministers representing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury, prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the work done in pursuance of the arrangements made under subsection (1).''.—[Mrs. Gillan.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This is where we start the real debate on the Bill. [Interruption.] If members of the Committee will settle down, I will be able to advance my arguments in respect of the new clauses.

Andrew Rowe: I am looking carefully at the amendment paper. The title of new clause 1 reads:
 ``Reduction in proverty: co-ordination within Government ''. 
Is ``proverty'' a misprint for ``probity''?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend's eagle eye strikes again. He has raised a serious point. I should like to think that the new clause is about reducing poverty, not probity, but I do not want to stray on to ground that would oblige the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston to get to his feet to criticise me.

Bill O'Brien: Order. As the hon. Lady tabled the new clause, she can easily clarify the matter by confirming to the Committee that its subject is the reduction of poverty and that the amendment paper contains a misprint.

Cheryl Gillan: Having taken advice from the Clerk, I understand that that is correct.
 New clause 1 would provide great help and assistance to the Department for International Development by ensuring that all Departments that are in some way responsible for overseas activities focus on DFID's primary aim of poverty reduction. It would also provide for a report to be laid before Parliament every year to chart the progress that has been made towards poverty reduction. We have covered aspects of that issue in previous debates, but not in quite the same fashion. 
 DFID is a new Department that the Government created when they came to power by splitting it off from the Foreign Office. If the Department is to be effective and if it is committed to the elimination of global poverty, it is essential that it is backed up by similar commitments from other Departments. That does not always happen: we do not see as much so-called joined-up government—I hate that phrase—as we should like. The Minister, who recently moved into his post at the Department, will learn from its history that similar commitments have not been made by other Departments, which consistently let down the Secretary of State and the Minister's predecessor. I therefore want to enshrine in legislation a vehicle that will offer the Department protection from colleagues in other parts of Government. 
 The Department has been given no debates on the Floor of the House since 1997—not even the usual channels and those members of the Government who arrange the business of the House have seen fit to grant it an annual vehicle wherein it can set out its stall and sing its own praises. Indeed, to give praise where it is due, the Minister's team has done some very good things. However, they are not protected from the vagaries of the remainder of the Government. 
 The Government and DFID have accepted that they must take a cross-departmental approach to poverty reduction. In the preface to the White Paper ``Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor'', which was published in December 2000, no less a person than the Prime Minister states: 
 ``This White Paper sets out the UK Government's policies in all these areas. It reflects our commitment to work across all parts of Government in order to help eliminate world poverty, and to cooperate with other governments and international institutions as part of a broader international effort.'' 
In other words, the Prime Minister himself seeks to realise the very aim that I have tried to enshrine in the new clause. 
 If my suggestion has something in common with the Prime Minister's comments, it cannot be too bad, and the Minister had better take it very seriously—indeed, I pray in aid the Prime Minister as the very reason for accepting the new clause. It is extremely important that matters are got right, but, as my hon. Friends will agree, they have not been got right in the past four years. My tabling the new clause was prompted by fears arising from instances of lack of co-ordination during that time. 
 I cite the example of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's involvement in the Ilisu dam affair, which is illustrated in the International Development Committee's sixth report, ``ECGD Developmental Issues and the Ilisu Dam.'' It became obvious to the Committee that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had not promoted human rights issues in Turkey, even though, according to the Government's White Paper on globalisation, that was DFID's intention. The White Paper states: 
 ``Making political institutions work for poor people means helping to strengthen the voices of the poor and helping them to realise their human rights.'' 
The Ilisu dam affair, however, shows that the FCO made no attempt to raise human rights issues with the Department of Trade and Industry in particular. In response to the International Development Committee, the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, Richard Caborn, said: 
 ``The DTI is not responsible for human rights. It will take the advice of other government departments.'' 
However, to the best of my knowledge that point was not made in respect of DFID, the FCO and other Departments. 
 DFID has a clear aim and objective, which is stressed in the globalisation White Paper. The practical issues associated with the Ilisu dam were examined by the International Development Committee, which found that there was no co-ordination in terms of responsibility for the human rights of the individuals concerned, which is a core aspect of DFID's work. Those rights were completely ignored by the FCO and the DTI. Indeed, it is clear that DFID did not appreciate the DTI's approach to the project. The report concludes: 
 ``We have no sense that ECGD and the United Kingdom Government have at any point seriously considered what repercussions the construction of the Dam will have on the prospects for peace (and thus genuine sustainable development)''— 
another phrase with which we have become familiar— 
``and the rights of the marginalised in this region of Turkey''. 
Here we have my first practical example of a lack of co-ordination. It is imperative that there is co-ordination between those three Government departments. 
 Practical examples are important. Let us consider what happened in the case of Hurricane Mitch. There was some difference between the reports from the Treasury and the Department for International Development. As we know, hurricane Mitch was a terrible hurricane that swept Central America—a dreadful natural disaster. It was reported in the press that it turned British aid policy upside down as the Government found themselves at the head of international help to countries stricken by disasters. The Chancellor seized the chance to demand a global moratorium on debt repayments by afflicted economies within 48 hours of a completely different announcement made by Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, who, two days earlier, had said that that would be an irrelevant issue.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I must remind the hon. Lady of the convention that right hon. and hon. Members are not mentioned by name, but by constituency or title. The hon. Lady has now done that twice. Perhaps she would follow the convention in future.

Cheryl Gillan: I do apologise, Mr Butterfill. It was completely inadvertent. I am seeking to read from documents where the Secretary of State is named in person. No disrespect to her is intended. I offer my unreserved apology.
 At a time when an emergency was being dealt with, the Treasury and the Department for International Development issued conflicting statements within a short period of time. That was not joined-up government at its best. 
 We need to consider what happened in the case of Mozambique. In March 2000, the Ministry of Defence did not exactly demonstrate a commitment to poverty reduction when it charged to DFID some £2.2 million, the full market price for four Puma helicopters to assist in Mozambique. 
 I have said that I shall give praise where praise is due, and DFID carried out some spectacular work on Mozambique, so I join those who praised the unquestioned rapidity and scope of the response in many areas. However, at the same time there was an unseemly and subsequently public row between the Ministry of Defence and DFID. Some criticism was made that the UK helicopters were not deployed immediately because of the discussions taking place between the Ministry of Defence and DFID. More recently, criticism was made of the apparent cut in the planned expenditure on Mozambique. That did not contribute to the view that could easily be taken, looking objectively at what was going on, that all Government departments were singing from the same hymn sheet. It is a great shame, because in such instances we should not be reduced to petty quarrelling over the cost of helicopters before they are deployed. I am sure that the Minister will agree. Such matters should be discussed afterwards, not while the emergency is in train. 
 We must also briefly examine what happened with Montserrat. When a volcano devastated that Caribbean island in August 1997, the islanders found themselves in a disastrous position. The photographs that were taken show the devastation on the island.

Jenny Tonge: The record must be put straight. The Soufriere volcano in Montserrat was erupting long before 1997, and that was the problem: it was an unpredictable and on-going event. In 1997, the arrangements for aid were in a mess. I know that because I went out there and saw it for myself.

Cheryl Gillan: I was reading my notes incorrectly. In fact, it was in August 1997 that the Secretary of State accused the islanders of irresponsibility and said that next they would ask for ``golden elephants'' in their pleas for aid and assistance.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Lady should put that period in context. At the time, 2,000 people were left on the island—mainly the elderly and disabled. More than 100 policemen were there, funded by this country, and the main request from the island was for a new prison. The Secretary of State probably said what she did bearing in mind that a prison was not the most urgent requirement for the island.

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are in danger of being diverted. I have tolerated the last exchange, but we are in danger of moving from a debate about new clause 1 to a general debate about the condition of Montserrat in 1997.

Cheryl Gillan: Of course, Mr. Butterfill.
 The crisis in Montserrat serves as an example because splits in the Cabinet were allegedly demonstrated over responsibility for the island. The Foreign Secretary appeared to take over the Government's handling of the Montserrat crisis, after criticising the Secretary of State for International Development. Regardless of whether she was right—the hon. Member for Richmond Park obviously thinks that she was—the Prime Minister's office was quoted as saying that the reason for the Foreign Office taking over the matter was because it wanted to ensure better co-ordination across Departments. That takes us back to the heart of new clause 1, by which I am seeking better co-ordination across Departments, in the interests of DFID.

Andrew Robathan: The International Development Committee carried out an inquiry into the Montserrat situation; in fact, it may have been the first report that we issued in the 1997-98 Session. We found that greater co-ordination between Departments was needed, especially between DFID and the Foreign Office. There was a self-evident—although not malign—split. It was a bad-tempered division between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, which was unfortunate for the situation in Montserrat.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I come now to the work of the International Development Committee, coupled with that of the Select Committees on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry for my final example in support of the new clause 1.
 There is an on-going and disturbing lack of co-ordination across Government. The Quadripartite Committee report that was published yesterday morning encompasses export licences. Paragraph 61 provides a good example of the failure of Government to co-ordinate. It evaluates the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and DFID. DFID does not at present sign off the annual reports on licences. At paragraph 61, there is a strong recommendation from the Quadripartite Committee that the concerns that have been raised in the past by the Department should be taken into account. More importantly, it says that the Department should be accountable in any matter in which has been involved. The recommendation is that DFID should have more joined-up government with its fellow Departments by appending its name to reports in which it has a say, however small. 
 I have more examples to give, but shall hold back. The Government have failed to deliver joined-up decision making. The new clause would ensure that other Government Departments could not ignore the aims and objectives of this Department in their dealings with developing countries. As it is a new clause, I shall be happy if the Minister wishes to alter the wording. However, we tabled it in good faith and I hope that he will accept it.

Andrew Rowe: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham began by quoting the Prime Minister. I am not one of those who always assume that the Prime Minister sets out with malign intent; I think rather that he becomes carried away by the audience to which he is speaking, and, in his natural enthusiasm, overstates the case to the point at which he finds it difficult to deliver.
 In this case, he has underestimated the extraordinary difficulty of ensuring that Departments work together, when the ethos of Departments is often at odds. I was for a time a parliamentary private secretary—the height of my parliamentary career—in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that it has changed since those days, but I have little doubt that it is filled with hard-working and effective civil servants, and former business people, who are on secondment or short-term contracts, whose success is evaluated by how much British produce they sell overseas. The proposition that, in pursuit of the alleviation of poverty, they should give part of British production over to some indigenous enterprise in a poor country does not automatically warm the cockles of their hearts. It is folly to believe that people whose careers depend on an entirely different ethos will find it easy to change. 
 If that entirely proper objective is to be achieved, there will have to be a considerable appraisal within Government of what the objectives really are. One could make a serious case that, were we able to bring countries—for example, those in sub-Saharan Africa—to a point where they had serious purchasing power and serious prosperity, they would provide a much better long-term market for British goods than they currently possibly can. However, it is asking a great deal of a British company to hold back from selling its goods in the hope that, five or 10 years down the track, the room that it has made for indigenous enterprises will yield it better sales. 
 What the Prime Minister said—that we should all be equally committed to the alleviation of worldwide poverty—is, in a sense, pie in the sky. I should like to think that it was not, but I am not at all sanguine about the idea. Such commitment would require a much bigger effort than has so far been put in. We are better than we were, and I hope that we will get much better still. We are certainly better in terms of the aid programme. If the Government of a country think that it would be nice to have a magnetic resonance imaging scanning machine in a new hospital in their capital city, we no longer simply allow a British supplier to make a sizeable profit by producing a machine that the people in that country have neither the skill to maintain nor even, sometimes, the skill to use. Those with either skill would only be the richest of the rich rather than the poorest of the poor. We are beginning to get the message across. 
 However, to get it across to the other Departments will take a great deal of hard work, especially in the case of the Ministry of Defence, the whole ethos of which is to promote sales of British arms overseas. That is a perfectly understandable position. One day—I could not possibly put a date on it—it became apparent to the Ministry of Defence that it could only ever fund the next generation of weapons if it sold a huge proportion of its current stock of weapons to people overseas. That was a black day for the world, but it was also a very important day in the development of the Ministry of Defence. There is a serious problem with the departmental culture. The Departments will, almost instinctively, resist any suggestion that they should hold back in order that the poorest of the poor should benefit instead. 
 I support the new clause. It embodies a valuable aspiration, which the Prime Minister clearly shares—when he is not talking to an audience from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Women's Institute. However, I do not think that it would be easy to implement, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on how we might achieve that valuable objective.

Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief, because I want to get on to new clause 2. I have an important speech to make on the United Nations and the European Union. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I shall not pray the Prime Minister in aid. It is always rather unwise, as I am never quite sure what he really wants to achieve.

Andrew Rowe: Another term of Government.

Andrew Robathan: That seems to be the Prime Minister's overriding aim, but I shall not go down that road, as I do not think it especially relevant to this important new clause.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham suggested, co-ordination has failed badly on several occasions in this Parliament. I want to home in on the Ilisu dam, which is the best illustration of why the new clause is necessary. The International Development Committee held a short inquiry into the Ilisu dam and summoned the Minister for Trade before us. When questioned, he said that he had not asked for or been given any advice by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on human rights and the Ilisu dam. 
 The subject is crucial to the Bill. The area is largely populated by Kurds and is in conflict. We know that the Kurdistan area—the Turks do not like to use that term—spreads across Syria, Iran, Iraq and into Turkey. A serious war is taking place there. It makes the small problems in Northern Ireland seem as nothing, as hundreds of people are killed there in a day. We have discussed conflict at length in relation to the Bill. 
 The Kurds believe that they are not properly represented at a governmental level, which is a fair and reasonable point. No love is lost between the Turkish Government and the Kurds. The issue also touches on poverty. The people who live where the dam is to be built—perhaps 60,000 of them—will be pushed out of their homes without compensation and moved to places where they cannot make a proper living. That problem is fundamentally important to development, yet one Department gave no advice about human rights to another Department. 
 The issue has been raised more by Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), than anyone else. The Select Committee issued a report on it, which I trust that the Minister has read as part of the small amount of reading that he will have had since taking on his ministerial responsibilities. 
 In our consideration of the lack of co-ordination on the Ilisu dam, especially the lack of ECGD cover, we wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office to ask about their positions. We received a letter from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry saying that he was happy to show us all the correspondence issued between the two Departments. We suspect that there was none. From the Foreign Office, we received a letter from the Minister for Europe, whose brief apparently covers Turkey as well. He has been in the news recently, and I suspect that he will continue to be. He said that we could definitely not see the correspondence because it was confidential. That raises freedom of information issues. 
 Because of the lack of communication on a development issue, the Committee has complained to the ombudsman, for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, about the Government's failure to provide information to us. We look forward to the ombudsman's report in the near future. 
 When the Minister responds, I am sure that he will say that our action is unnecessary because we have joined-up government. We used to use the word ``holistic''; I do not like either term. I want proper co-ordination between Departments, but at the moment, we do not have it. As my hon. Friends have pointed out on several occasions, we have not seen proper joined-up government, a holistic approach has not been taken and there has been no co-ordination. The clause is a simple provision. We look forward to it being included in the Bill.

Jenny Tonge: A matter of great importance concerns the co-operation of other Departments with the Department for International Development. I do not know how many times I have said so—
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Order [12 March], to complete the proceedings on the Bill. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. Despite the best endeavours of the Opposition, the new clauses still require substantial deliberation. The Government have chosen to restrict the time available to discuss the Bill, notwithstanding that we said that we were in favour of its provisions and that we seek to improve it. Could you advise us on what to do? How can our right to scrutinise legislation be safeguarded if the Committee has to come to such a premature end?

Bill O'Brien: Any new clauses that have not been considered by the Committee may be tabled on Report.
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at three minutes past Five o'clock.